Tag: war crimes

Haviv Response

Soldier kicking people laying on the street

Many people have commented on the above image: everyone from Susan Sontag to BBC News and New York Times reporters to Joshua Lipton of the Columbia Journalism Review. The role of the photojournalist is always a point of contention hotly debated by novelists, journalists and scholars alike. After a lot of research, I was unable to find non-American/European sources of commentary.

Susan Sontag was troubled by the aesthetics and almost glorified implications the medium of photography can have on pain. While I would argue that this photo of the Serbian paramilitary member kicking the body of the dying civilian is by no means beautiful it is aesthetically stunning. The color is rich, from the blue car in the back to the brick wall, and the soldier’s action is captured in “the decisive moment” we have discussed this semester. However I do not think that the aesthetics of this photo detracts from the horror this photo captured. One article that I found interesting — which integrated both Sontag’s On The Pain of Others and this specific photo — was “The Other Eye of the Beholder” by Alexander Nehamas in 2003 for The American Prospect. Nehamas argued “Photography is not the only visual medium to go hand in hand with death. Death has been the constant companion of all visual representation since its very beginnings. […] A photograph is “a record of the real.” A photograph demands the pain to be felt. Whether people act on that pain, however, is up to the viewer

Many of the reporters commented on the evidence angle of the Haviv photo perhaps because they too are journalists and understand the plight of documenting rather than interviewing. The LA Times reporter, David Reff, said in a 2001 article “It is almost unimaginable that there could be more than one appropriate interpretation of a Ron Haviv picture.” From BBC to the LA Times it was agreed that this photo perfectly depicted the face of ethnic cleansing and the atrocities going on in Bosnia during this time.

It is evident this photo has been shown in a vast array of news publications, journalistic reviews and was used as evidence in a court of law (which according to The New York Times is rare for photographers to agree to). I feel that the meaning of this image today is still that of a symbol representing ethnic cleansing.

If I were studying the legacy of this image I would speak to the United Nations about it. Haviv was quoted in articles by The New York Times, The Globe and Mail and BBC News that his photos are evidence, evidence for the world governments and the world citizens. “Nobody should be able to say they didn’t know what was happening. What we do as photographers is to attempt to create a body of evidence to hold people accountable” Haviv told The New York Times. I would pose this question to the UN: how many photos of ethnic cleansing, mass genocides and war crimes will you need until this terror comes to an end?

Photojournalists such as Haviv risk their lives to report world news and for us to do nothing in terms of peace or policy making is a disservice to both the photojournalist and more so, our world.

Sources: (all hyperlinked throughout minus the ProQuest database source)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/capturing-a-war-crime/article25016202/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1347218.stm

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/21/books/bk-14875/2

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/photography-in-the-docket-as-evidence/?_r=0

http://prospect.org/article/other-eye-beholder

http://search.proquest.com/pqcentral/docview/230360791/74834B4D519F43D7PQ/1?accountid=12768

The Legacy of Ron Haviv’s Photographs

 

In regards to David Reiff’s quote about Ron Haviv’s photographs, thus far I’ve found that statement to be relatively true. In researching different ways Haviv’s images from Blood and Honey have been written about and interpreted, I’ve come across mostly the same opinions and uses of the photographs. I have not found the photographs to be taken out of context, and most of the responses I’ve read use the images to supplement arguments regarding the war crimes committed during the Bosnian Genocide. I looked at articles written in The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Aljazeera, The Globe and Mail, and BBC News, as well as from Human Rights Watch, Crimes of War, and Balkan Transitional Justice.

I was intrigued by how many of these articles included Haviv’s personal story. A few different articles were as much invested in him as a photographer and how he was given access to take such stories, as they were in the events that took place and the crimes that were committed. I think this is because of Haviv’s unique position to and relationship with Arkan. For example, the article in The New York Times, from 2013, and the one in Canada’s The Globe and Mail, from 2015, both were focused on Haviv, how he was able to take these photographs, and what he wanted to accomplish with them. Centering on Haviv’s own statements, I found many of the writers emphasized how these photographs were testaments to and undeniable proof of the atrocious acts of violence committed in Bosnia. There seems to be much acknowledgment that the photographs did not initiate the change Haviv had hoped for, but still stand as important recordings of the war.

There is also a focus on how Arkan’s men have escaped punishment and justice. Both the article in Balkan Transition Justice, and AlJazeera, both from 2014, addressed how Arkan’s Tigers have not been held accountable or prosecuted for their crimes. His photographs, specifically the one of the paramilitary member kicking the dying civilian, are used as visual evidence to support the claims against Arkan’s Tigers and ask how its possible these men have not been prosecuted.

There was one essay, from 2015 in Human Rights Quarterly, which took a different perspective on the images. The authors, Martin Lukk and Keith Doubt, posed questions regarding if the presence of Haviv’s camera actually provoked Arkan’s behavior. They ask “Was Haviv’s camera a mirror through which Arkan was able to promote his terrifying images to the world and his victims’ community? Was Haviv an unwitting accomplice to Arkan’s massacre of unarmed civilians?” I think the questions posed in this essay are incredibly important to keep in mind when thinking about Haviv’s work because he was invited to photograph by Arkan. Did the camera affect Arkan’s desire to be seen and did he act upon that desire? Also, how did the camera influence the victims? Were they given false hope that the camera could prevent their death or torture? Because these images did not achieve the political change Haviv had hoped they would, I would be interested to hear from the victims of these atrocities, as well as their families, about how they value these images. Do these images function as tools to show how people, and witnesses, must be held accountable and acts like this cannot go unnoticed? Or are they reminders that the world watched as atrocities and massacres unfolded and yet did nothing about it?

 

SOURCES:

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/photography-in-the-docket-as-evidence/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/capturing-a-war-crime/article25016202/

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/arkan-s-paramilitaries-tigers-who-escaped-justice

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1347218.stm

http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2014/12/arkan-balkan-tigers-escape-accountability-2014127122222470909.html

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/paramilitaries/

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v037/37.3.lukk.html